AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was on probation and faced allegations of violating two specific conditions: failing to obtain permission before leaving Luna County and failing to communicate truthfully and accurately with his probation officer. These violations led to a petition by the State to revoke the Defendant's probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the Defendant willfully violated probation conditions by leaving Luna County without permission and by not communicating truthfully and accurately with his probation officer (para 3).
• Defendant: Contended that the probation violations were de minimis and thus should not lead to revocation. Additionally, argued that revocation on the basis of technical violations constituted a due process violation, especially given the "zero tolerance" policy of his probation which did not allow for any violations (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State met its burden of establishing a probation violation with reasonable certainty.
• Whether revocation of probation for technical violations constitutes a violation of due process.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judge Megan P. Duffy, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, held that the State successfully proved the Defendant willfully violated his probation conditions. The Court noted that the State bears the burden of proving a probation violation with reasonable certainty and must demonstrate willful conduct on the part of the probationer. The evidence presented supported the district court's findings that the Defendant left Luna County without permission and failed to communicate truthfully with his probation officer. The Defendant's argument that the violations were de minimis and that revocation for technical violations violated due process was rejected. The Court pointed out that the Defendant's initial sentence included a "zero tolerance" provision for any probation violation, and the absence of a technical violation program in the Sixth Judicial District did not affect the revocation's validity. The Court concluded that the evidence of willful violations was sufficient to support the revocation of probation (paras 2-5).